↓ Skip to main content

Mobile phones are a viable option for surveying young Australian women: a comparison of two telephone survey methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Mobile phones are a viable option for surveying young Australian women: a comparison of two telephone survey methods
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bette Liu, Julia ML Brotherton, David Shellard, Basil Donovan, Marion Saville, John M Kaldor

Abstract

Households with fixed-line telephones have decreased while mobile (cell) phone ownership has increased. We therefore sought to examine the feasibility of recruiting young women for a national health survey through random digit dialling mobile phones.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Computer Science 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 7 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2012.
All research outputs
#6,278,456
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#554
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,419
of 217,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#37
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 217,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.